I have been trying out ChatGPT to explore its capabilities. And my one-sentence conclusion after using it to ask some very basic/simple greenhouse gas emission-related questions: Use ChatGPT with extreme caution and expect errors, even on simple data questions.
Here is a slightly expanded explanation. I asked ChatGPT about the GHG emissions for China, the US, and the globe . According to ChatGPT, China’s share of global GHG emissions was 28%, while the US share was 15% for 2021. In terms of absolute number, it also indicated that China’s 2019 emissions were 10.17 gigatons of carbon dioxide carbonequivalents and US emissions in 2019 were 5.41 gigatons (based on information from the Global Carbon Project). This seemed plausible (and was close to what I found when checking the Global Carbon Project website directly). However, it then gave global GHG emissions for 2019 at 59.1 gigatons – that of course does not plausibly match up with the numbers and percentages for the US and China. Based on the 2019 US and China numbers, global emission should be to 36 gigatons.
It seems likely that it served up numbers that encompassed different GHG sources, i.e. possibly including land use emissions in one set of numbers and ignoring them in the other. In any event, I was surprised that Chatgpt provided internally inconsistent answers. When challenged, here is what ChatGPT said:
“You are correct that the numbers I provided in my previous answers were inconsistent. I apologize for the confusion and any misinformation that may have caused. According to the latest available data from the Global Carbon Project, China’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2019 were approximately 14.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e), which is about 30% of global emissions. The United States was the second-largest emitter with approximately 4.9 GtCO2e or about 11% of global emissions. Global GHG emissions in 2019 were indeed around 59 GtCO2e, as you mentioned. The largest sources of global GHG emissions are energy-related emissions from burning fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, and industry, as well as emissions from agriculture, land use, and waste management. Again, I apologize for any confusion my previous answers may have caused, and I hope this clarifies the correct information about global and Chinese GHG emissions in 2019.”
Better explanation, but … still đ¤ ｢(ďžďžďž) ｢(ｼิ.ｼิ) ｢(âââââ)
Of course, I should have noted that many people have reported ChatGPT making serious mistakes and providing wildly wrong answers. But I thought a simple data information request should be a softball – not much different from a traditional search engine query. But clearly not so. Too bad that ChatGPT cannot even be trusted for some simple data queries.
The Environmental Justice Law & Advocacy Lab today released its report on a Bay Area animal rendering plant operated by Darling International Ingredients, Inc. (Darling). In 2021, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice (Greenaction) reached out to the EJ Law and⌠⌠16 more words
As a person whose first name always gets butchered (but not being bothered by it), this NPR story was quite an amusing listen (and struck a cord). I have answered to so many many variations of my first name (Tseming), including Jeremy and Tasmin, that I have lost track. Some years ago, I adopted the coffee shop name of “Chuck.” It seemed simple and familiar to anybody. First time my daughter heard me being greeted as Chuck by a Starbucks barista, her eyes turned as big as dinner plates. And then there was the time when I used it in response to a workshop facilitator asking for my name, leaving most of my colleagues in confused silence.
Was in Bangkok visiting with partners Andrew Stoutley and Alan Adcock at Tilleke & Gibbins, one of the leading commercial law firms in Southeast Asia, and to see our rising 2L student Seyonna Christian who is externing in the IP practice of the firm. What a great experience for her!
Part 1 – Julia Olson (By Ariana Snyder): Julia Olson graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1997. Her work as an advocate began early in her legal career when she represented various environmental groups working to protect the environment, organic agriculture, and human health. In 2006, on one hot summer day, eight-month pregnant Julia Olson went on a run. The heat was unbearable and so she sought out a place to cool off. Al Goreâs documentary âAn Inconvenient Truthâ about climate change and the growing planetary emergency happened to play in a local movie theater.
When Julia Olson saw the film, she thought about the child she was pregnant with and the world they would be born into. Her child would be brought into a possibly unsafe planet plagued with climate issues. After coming to this realization and feeling the weight of her childrenâs future on her shoulders, Julia Olson knew she had to do something to protect her childrenâs future. A few years later, in 2010, Julia Olson founded Our Childrenâs Trust to lead a legal campaign on the behalf of all future generations.
Our Childrenâs Trust is a non-profit public interest law firm that provides campaign-based legal services to youths to protect their legal rights to a safe climate. She was inspired by the work of one of the worldâs most respected climate scientists James Hansen and the Minors Oposa case, a lawsuit in the Philippines brought (and won) by environmental attorney Tony Oposa on behalf of his children against the government. Our Childrenâs Trust actively works to secure the Earthâs climate system for the present and future generations. Its legal campaign uses a strategy that focuses on media, education, and public engagement, with the goal of ensuring climate recovery planning at various government levels.
(By Ariana Snyder) Juliana v. United States was brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the U.S. government for violating their Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty, property, and public trust resources. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to argue that there is a constitutional right to a safe and livable environment. All youths assert that they have been detrimentally injured by climate change. For example, one plaintiff states that due to climate change a massive storm dumped heavy rain on her home in Southern Louisiana causing storm water and sewage flooding; other plaintiffs assert respiratory problems due to wildfire smoke and longer pollen seasons. Almost all of the plaintiffs raise psychological distress as a result of the changing climate. The lawsuit specifically asks the Oregon courts to order the United States government to prepare a plan on how to lower global carbon dioxide levels.
The lawsuit has helped bring attention to key issues in the ongoing public debate about climate change policy. Politicians, government lawyers, and the U.S. Department of Justice have argued that climate policy should be left to Congress and the Executive Branch, some even going as far as to argue that the Courts do not have jurisdiction over climate change lawsuits. Essentially, the argument hinges on the idea that climate policy must be addressed by the political process- voting, policy, representation, etc. This puts the youth plaintiffs in an untenable position. As youths, they are not permitted to participate in the political process since they may not vote. In fact, the future generations that the lawsuit hopes to advocate for cannot participate in the political process either. Yet, it is the youth and unborn future generations that will be impacted most by the governmentâs failure to solve todayâs climate change problem. At present, the plaintiffs are waiting for a ruling on their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene.
In addition to Juliana v. United States, Our Childrenâs Trust has other cases pending in state courts and elsewhere across the world. For example, on March 13, 2020, the organization helped 16 youths in Montana file a constitutional climate lawsuit, arguing that Montana is violating their state constitutional rights to a clean and healthful environment. The plaintiffs and attorneys are currently gathering evidence and preparing for trial, which is scheduled for early 2023. Our Childrenâs Trust also participates in global cases. For instance, the organization is currently helping with the case JĂłvenes v. Gobierno de MĂŠxico, where 15 youth plaintiffs are requesting the Mexican government comply with its constitutional obligations and issue regulations concerning Mexicoâs climate change law. Currently, the plaintiffs are preparing for a hearing in 2022. Â
Working on the cutting edge of climate change litigation and pushing the law beyond conventional doctrine has not come without difficulties and setbacks. Yet, there are few causes as worthy as advocating for the welfare of children and unborn future generations who will suffer the most from climate change. With her dedication to ensuring a livable planet for current and future generations, Julia Olson is truly a deserving recipient of the Katharine and George Alexander Prize.
Citizen Yang 